Psychiatric reform of the security measures: the experience of paili in goiás

Authors

  • Haroldo Caetano da Silva

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19950

Keywords:

psychiatry, community psychiatry, security measures, compulsory hospitalization, clinical competence

Abstract

The law n. 10.216/2001 humanizes the mental health care, and shifts the focus of treatment towards community and open services. The Psychiatric Reform Act or Anti-asylum Act, as it is known, reaches the compulsory hospitalization determined by the criminal justice as a security measure. Now, the judge must prefer ambulatory treatment, only opting by hospitalization "when the extra-hospital resources are insufficient", in which case will be preceded by "detailed medical report which characterizes their motives". The figure of dangerousness loses strength. The security measurement has not retributive nature. The remaining of the patient in the public jail configures the crime of torture (Law n. 9455/97). The Program for Integral Attention to Demented Lawbreakers concerns the implementation of security measures according to the Law n. 10.216, receiving their patients in health services. With autonomy, the health teams put into practice the best treatment without the necessity for prior judicial determination. The Program takes the subject to the Universal Health System, what greatly favors the inclusion of family and society, working as a successful experience in rescuing the dignity of patients undergoing a security measure.

References

Araujo RV. Relato de experiência da criação, atuação e contribuições do Programa de Atenção Integral ao Louco Infrator - PAILI, no contexto da reforma psiquiátrica. In: Tecendo redes em saúde mental no cerrado. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília e Ministério da Saúde, 2009.

Silva HC. Execução Penal. 3ª ed. Porto Alegre: Magister Editora, 2006.

Silva HC. Implementação da Reforma Psiquiátrica na Execução das Medidas de Segurança. Goiânia: Escola Superior do Ministério Público do Estado de Goiás, 2009.

Downloads

Published

2010-04-01

Issue

Vol. 20 No. 1 (2010)

Section

Original Research

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis